# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 20 21 2003_S13
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Commission reviewed the proposed bylaws and offers the following recommendations. Bylaw
designations and page references will refer to the marked version of the current Bylaws. The Commission
also invites the Bylaws Task Force, if it desires, to discuss further the following observations and
recommendations with the Secretary of the Synod.
§

Article II “Mission” [p. 1]: As the Synod in that place, the District should consider including
mention in its mission statement of the second reason for organizing a Synod (Synod Bylaw
1.01), namely, that the Synod, in addition to functioning in support of its member congregations,
also functions on behalf of its member congregations to administer those ministries which can be
accomplished more effectively in association with other member congregations of the Synod.

§

Bylaw II A, “Relationship to Synod” [p. 1]: Consideration might be given to including reference
to Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws that describe this relationship, e.g., Art. XII; Bylaws 1.05 b,
4.01, 4.07.

§

Bylaw II B 5 [p. 1]: Perhaps the single title, “Convention Workbook” (as also in Bylaw III F 3 g
[p. 19] would be helpful.

§

Bylaw II B 6 [p. 1] does not appear to clarify voting status as intended. In the case of a dual
parish served by two called pastors, the proposed bylaw would seem to allow each congregation
to have both a lay delegate and a pastoral delegate. Please note Article V of the Synod’s
Constitution: “At the meetings of the Districts of the Synod every congregation or parish is
entitled to two votes, one of which is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay delegate.”
(See also Opinion 03-2327.)

§

Bylaw II C 1 b [p. 2]: Including “members” after “lay” would clarify, to therefore read: “three (3)
lay members.”

§

Bylaw II C 1 c (2) [p. 2]: The Bylaws of the Synod, not the Secretary of the Synod, determine the
years in which the District must elect a member of the Synod’s Committee for Convention
Nominations.

§

Bylaw II C 1 f (2) [p. 3]: Is there a conflict between the requirement of this bylaw that all persons
receiving 2% of all District congregations must be included on the ballot and that of other bylaws
(Bylaw III F 3) which limit the number of nominations and require that only those candidates
receiving “the greatest number of nominations” be included [p. 18]?

§

Bylaw II C 1 f (3) [p. 3]: The proposed bylaw provides for no nominations from the floor. The
Commission makes three observations: (1) Roberts assumes that nominations from the floor will
be received: “After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the
different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor” (Robert’s
Rules of Order, 10th Edition, October 2000, p. 421). (2) This Commission has ruled that floor
nominations are to be permitted: “The Nominating Committee should be elected by the
convention and additional nominations from the floor should be permitted. For the next
convention, however, the present arrangement of an appointed nominating committee may be
followed as long as nominations from the floor are also permitted” (Ag. 1185, B-F; 1480, A-F;
CCM Minutes, April 24-25, 1981). (3) Synod’s Bylaws provide for nominations from the floor
after the report of the Committee for Convention Nominations (Synod Bylaw 3.985). Even the
election process for the President and Vice-Presidents (Synod Bylaw 3.961 f) allows for floor
nominations by providing the right to alter each slate at the proper time by amendment.

91